The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-12-22
The Court Record.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.


Hon. J. a. Mitchell. Chief Justice
1860. Louisville. New Albany & Chicago
Railway Company vs.: Lizzie Wood. Washing
ton c. c. Affirmed Elliott, J.-Complaint that
appellee purchased a ticket and entered of
appellants passenger trains The ticket entitled
her to passage from Salem to Campbellsburg
At the latter place the appellant failed
and refused to stop the train a
sufficient length of time to enable her to
leave it, but having stopped the train, the con-
ductor in charge thereof before the plaintiff mad
sufficient time TO get safely off the cars, and
while she was standing on the platform of the
cars, which point she had reached while the
train was not in motion, signalled the train, SO
soon as she had reached the platform, to move
on; the engineer did obey the signal, and started
the train in motion before plaintiff could get off.
and while she was standing on the platform the
conductor wilfully, carelessly and improperly
seized her and, with fault or negligence on his
part, wrenched her off the steps and jerked her
to the ground, causing great injury. ETC.
The complaint is good. The conductor
guilty of q tort for which appellant is liable
though the tort was negligent and not will
full one. T. In such case &c is competent for
the plaintiff. as witness, to exhibit injured
limb to the jury. (3 Evidence of witness
that she was acquainted with the plaintiff. de-
scribing her personal appearance and physical
condition previous to the in Jury. and her condi-
ton Immediately after the injury, and her con-
diton a month later. is admissible. a. hypo-
thetical question need not include the substance
of all the evidence, but such a of facts
which he claims the evidence justifes. 70. In
such case evidence as to what was commonly
the cause of certain troubles Is inadmissbe AS
being too vague a subject matter vague
ought not 60 be the subject of inquiry unless it
is directly In issue motive, and the like
&C. A distinct and independent subject cannot
be introduced cross-exami alton but the cross
examination may TO all matters involved in
the subject mbraced in the examinasion-in- chief.
IN Statements made to physician in his
professional capacity competent when
descriptive OF existing symptoms pains, al
though they are not &C missible when mere mar
ratives of past occurrences. ISL The instruc-
tons are reviewed ar length and errors
found i9l The evidence shows that appellee
prior to the accident a strong aud healthy
woman; that her husband paralytic. and
that she attended to the house and farm affairs;
that she is now almost helpless and unable to
do anything Under the circumstances it cannot
be declared that the damages are the result OF
passion or prejudice.
1890. Geo. A Rubush VS.. State. Knox C. C.
Rehearing denied
1864. VIM. E. Davidson ct al. Joseph
Coon. Hancock c. c. Reinstated.
l4007. Frank George State ex rel. White
head. Perry C. G. Dismissed.
1860 Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance
Company VS.. Richard L. Talbot Marion c.
Reversed. Mitchell C. j.
SUPERIOR COURT.
Room 2-Hon. ID. w. Howe. Judge.
John T. Roberts rs. NINA NJ. Noble ct al;
mechanics lien. On trial by court.